Attorney general gets it right on pension initiative: Guest commentary

California voters deserve a no-spin, just-the-facts version of what a ballot measure is all about from the attorney general. And that’s just what they got from Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris last month when she summed up the measure being proposed by San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed to enable elected officials to reduce the retirement benefits of teachers, firefighters, police officers, school bus drivers and other public employees.

While opponents of the Reed initiative were dissatisfied that the “title and summary” from the attorney general failed to mention the provision that called for invalidating existing contracts, we were pleased that Harris spelled out exactly what the measure proposed to do: eliminate the vested benefits of public employees.

Yet Reed is now taking the attorney general to court over her explanation of his measure, specifically because she used the word “eliminate.” But Reed has a problem: He and his allies have used the same word he’s criticizing the attorney general for using — “eliminate” — when detailing his ballot measure.

On Jan. 2, the exact time period when the Attorney General’s Office was crafting the title and summary, Reed and Pacific Grove Mayor Bill Kampe penned an op-ed for Fox & Hounds, where they referred to their plan to end vested rights benefit by writing: “To eliminate these roadblocks to reform, we have authored a ballot initiative that would empower state and local leaders to negotiate changes to employees’ future retirement benefit accruals, while protecting the benefits they have earned.”

Reed is not alone among pension slashers who have used the word “eliminate” when describing the initiative. Writing for Bloomberg, Steven Malanga of the Manhattan Institute noted: “Reed’s proposed ballot initiative to change the state constitution would specifically eliminate the notion that employee benefits are a contractual right that bars all future changes.”

The irony of Reed complaining about the description of this measure being unfair is not lost on many of us who watched the San Jose mayor’s attempt to manipulate the description of Measure B, his city’s pension measure that was recently ruled unconstitutional by a California court. Reed and his political allies attempted to put the measure on the ballot with a slanted description. A court ruled against Reed, requiring changes in the description.

Why is Reed’s initiative unlikely to pass or even get on the ballot? Because while everyone wants to end pension system abuses, people don’t support — to use Reed’s terminology — “eliminating” the retirement security promised to teachers, firefighters, police officers, school bus drivers and other public employees. Voters support those who keep our streets safe, teach our kids and protect our property.